OVERALL: Speakers offered many specific ideas at this Listening Session related to the
implementation of TEA-21. There was widespread support for TEA-21 guaranteed funding levels,
flexibility, streamlining provisions related to project delivery and the National Corridor Planning and
Border Infrastructure Programs.

Flexibility: Many speakers talked about the need for flexibility within the States to tailor approaches
to TEA-21 implementation accordingly. Specific Suggestions:

U.S. DOT should communicate information on best practices as a way of helping states
with implementation.

Let States resolve differences within their borders.

Move quickly on informing states how to apply for discretionary funds.

Get guidance out promptly, resist adding procedures or requirements not included in
TEA-21. Don't be prescriptive or process oriented.

Flexibility does not mean building port facilities with federal funds. We
strongly support federal funds being invested in facilities to serve ports, but not in
creating competitive disadvantages between ports.

TEA-21 increase should be equitably allocated to local projects. DOT should play an
honest broker role between states and local governments.

Project delivery process: There was universal agreement that the implementation timetable for projects has grown too long. Specific Suggestions:

DOT should execute agreements with other federal agencies to move NEPA more quickly.

Allow projects within TIP- 3 year time frame to be moved between funding categories and
allow amendments to both statewide (STIPs) and metropolitan TIPs.

Coordinate environmental and planning studies. Design-Build contracts should give states
some flexibility. MIS is out, so avoid a one size, fits all approach.

Congestion Management Systems, in order to be an effective tool, need to get information
down to people who need it to make improvements.

National Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure Programs: Many speakers indicated a
desire to have U.S. DOT move quickly to distribute these funds and to distribute the funds equitably
among the contenders for funds. Specific Suggestions:

If the program is intended to be seed money, then DOT should make sure the interior
portions of country gets some money.

Give priority to those corridors that have completed feasibility studies, like I-69 etc.

Give priority to those border crossings with highest volume of traffic and trade.

The $700 million total ($140 million per year) should be split $100 million for planning and
$40 million for infrastructure.

Innovative Finance Provisions: SIBs were widely supported as they have been in all of the sessions
to date. Speakers supported the new ability to leverage private capital through TIFIA however, they
felt that the exclusion of publically owned seaport and airport facilities will diminish the effectiveness
of this program. Intermodal freight facilities, of all nine in the (New Orleans) region, none qualify for
the TIFIA program. Specific Suggestions:

Expand the SIB pilot program beyond the 4 states and allow States with established SIBs
to use TEA-21 funds to capitalize their SIBs.

Remove the federal identity from repaid funds into SIBs.

High Priority Projects: As has been the case in other Listening Sessions, States want to be able to
use advance construction authority for high priority projects and asked that funds for these projects
not be allocated on year by year and project by project basis. The case was made that the project
delivery process would be more efficient if high priority projects could proceed when ready with other
sources of federal funds and then those sources repaid.

Research: ITS is important and we should be looking to find ways to use technology to increase
capacity. Research is needed to find environmentally sensitive way to remove lead. Some speakers
expressed concern about cuts in research at FHWA. States will prioritize research to ensure needed
research continues. It was recognized that States and universities need to work together with DOT
on research, priorities, etc.

Planning Issues: There were a variety of suggestions on the planning process and where it needs
improvement. States and MPOs did not always agree with approaches to planning issues, however.
Specific suggestions:

Provide clarification on how consultation is intended to work. Local officials should be
asked to assess their consultation process-- evaluate whether process is working and fix it if
need be.

Public involvement under ISTEA made us improve our process and guidance should state
levels of involvement needed for TIPs, Plans, and corridor level public involvement. Corridor
public involvement should be enhanced so discussion of regional scale issues occurs when
Plan and TIP are discussed vs. getting bogged down in corridor issues.

TEA-21 allows states to transfer funds away from air quality areas and is not in keeping
with intent of CMAQ. USDOT should require states to allocate funds to air quality
nonattainment and maintenance areas, at least at the level of ISTEA.

TEA-21 requires a list of TIP projects obligated in prior year...states should have to do this,
not locals and should show statewide projects and statewide obligations.

Include American Trucking Association (ATA) state chapters in the MPO process.
Develop best practices manual for including freight in planning process, include ways to
assess cost effectiveness of projects.

Transportation planning rule should include input prior to rule development and include
Indian tribes.

Freight Issues: Truckers oppose tolls Section 1216 of TEA-21 and urge U.S. DOT to select projects
carefully. CVO technologies are supported and the I-75 Advantage program is an example of
transponder equipped trucks traveling between states. Specific suggestions:

Support ITS research program and make sure it promotes intermodal connectivity.
Support ITS funds to establish CVO standards.

Intermodal connectors-- encourage state and locals to make these projects a priority for
investments.

Safety: Safety should be #1 priority. Operation LifeSaver program has been a success and the public
education through the Operation LifeSaver program should be continued. Section 130 funds for grade
crossing improvements is inadequate. The Section 130 program formula favors urban areas so rural
areas cannot compete successfully for funding. High traffic volume grade crossings in rural America
cannot compete. Specific suggestions:

Change the formula for Section 130 funds.

The hazard elimination program under Section 132 should be flexible and include safety
related improvements.

Indian Reservation Road Funds Issues: The Indian Reservation Road (IRR) funds administered
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs has a funding formula that results in 1/3 of funding to the Navajo
Nation with over 20 tribes competing for 2% of funding. The cap on funding that can be spent by
tribes for planning purposes of 2% is not enough money and amounts to about $5000 per year for
planning. Specific suggestions:

DOT should increase the amount that can be used for planning or provide a sufficient
guaranteed minimum.

Tribes want flexibility with IRR funding to choose the mode they see fit, including transit.
TEA-21 appears to allow for this so DOT ought to develop policies that allow this use,
particularly for ongoing operating costs of transit.

Highway Trust Fund use for maintenance has been prohibited for so long, it remains policy
but tribal ability to raise money is limited so, it appears that tribes cannot raise money to
maintain roads.

Indian Reservation Road funds can only be used for capital construction costs, this is a
problem.

Bikes and pedestrians should be included in all transportation investment decisions.

Bicycle and pedestrian amenities must be included always and everywhere. Provide a best
practices manual with specifics on how to consider bicycles and pedestrian needs. Simple
projects should not entail onerous requirements.

#10: We do not have to establish a constituency for transportation. The public understands that
transportation is vital.

#9: TEA-21 is futuristic.

#8: TEA-21 provides true, local policy authority.

#7: TEA-21 continues the shift in focus from the construction of the interstate system to local and
metropolitan systems. It gives local agency decisions the ability to stick. Local officials need
to have authority because that's where most services are provided.

#6: TEA-21 gives us the flexibility that is needed to balance the need for new construction and
maintaining what we have. Keep system up and running before thinking about new
construction.

#5: TEA-21 recognizes that multi-modal investments need to be made.

#4: TEA-21 recognizes that transportation should not be seen as a separate entity from the
development process and needs to be integrated with land use.

#3: TEA-21 recognizes the need for a blend of political and technical processes and a balance
between them.